Content deleted Content added
m link Nationally Determined Contributions using Find link |
m v2.02 - ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ - WP:WCW project (Heading hierarchy) |
||
Line 8:
Historically climate change has been approached at a multinational level where a unanimous consensus decision is reached at the [[United Nations]] (UN), under the [[United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]] (UNFCCC).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://unfccc.int/process/the-convention/history-of-the-convention|title=History of the Convention {{!}} UNFCCC|website=unfccc.int|access-date=2019-12-02}}</ref> This represents the dominant approach historically of engaging as many international governments as possible in taking action in on a worldwide public issue. While there is a precedent that this model can work, as seen in the Montreal Protocol, there has been a shift away from this after it failed in the Kyoto Protocol and more recently is in jeopardy for the Paris Agreement.
Unanimous consensus decision making has presented problems where any small number of countries can block passage of a resolution on what all countries will do to address the issue. Because of this small number of countries that do not want a resolution to the problem, all other countries are faced with the choice to attempt to combat the collective problem unilaterally, or also defect and economically benefit from not allocating the necessary resources to change. This is essentially the [[Free-rider problem|free rider problem]] present in the [[tragedy of the commons]], where the world's climate is a public, non-rival, non-excludeable good. The free rider problem can be summarized as the issue of a party receiving benefits of a public good without contributing to the cost.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Nordhaus|first=William|date=2015-04-04|title=Climate Clubs: Overcoming Free-riding in International Climate Policy|journal=American Economic Review|language=en|volume=105|issue=4|pages=1339–1370|doi=10.1257/aer.15000001|issn=0002-8282|url=https://www.aeaweb.org/aer/app/10504/presidential2015_app.pdf}}</ref> This often results in the good being overused or damaged by parties who are unable to be excluded from the using the good, resulting in a suboptimal good for everyone.
Despite the issue of the free rider problem, there has been a precedent which suggests that action on climate change can be accomplished on the world scale, as this was seen with previous agreements such as the [[Montreal Protocol]]. This agreement effectively phased out various substances that were causing the depletion of the ozone layer ([[Ozone depletion|ODS]]), and addressed an international issue through a treaty with a multilateral fund, subsidization for technology transfer, and professional involvement of the scientific community.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.unenvironment.org/ozonaction/who-we-are/about-montreal-protocol|title=About Montreal Protocol {{!}} Ozonaction|website=www.unenvironment.org|access-date=2019-10-23}}</ref>
The [[Kyoto Protocol]] is another international agreement that aims to reduce emissions and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, focusing on what industrialized nations can do to limit this. Nations in the agreement were assigned maximum amounts of emissions, and if these were not met then there was a penalty of a lower limit.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol|title=What is the Kyoto Protocol? {{!}} UNFCCC|website=unfccc.int|access-date=2019-10-23}}</ref> It has not been successful in its initial goal of decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, evidenced by the facts in the further rounds of countries pledging commitments, there have been many significant defections, including Canada and the US, and countries not following through on pledges. This creates a precedent where countries determine their own contributions and are able to withdraw from the agreement at any time, reintroducing the free-rider problem. The [[Doha Development Round|Doha Round]] extended the Kyoto Protocol to 2020 by reintroducing emissions targets,<ref name=":0" /> but was effectively replaced by the following Paris Agreement.
[[File:The Eiffel Tower Is Illuminated in Green to Celebrate Paris Agreement's Entry into Force.jpg|thumb|'''The Eiffel Tower Is Illuminated in Green to Celebrate Paris Agreement's Entry into Force''']]More recently, the 2016 [[Paris Agreement]] has come out with [[Intended Nationally Determined Contributions|Nationally Determined Contributions]] (NDCs), which are determined by countries and must be ambitious and progressive with every 5 years.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement|title=The Paris Agreement {{!}} UNFCCC|website=unfccc.int|access-date=2019-10-23}}</ref> Since the NDCs are determined by each individual country, there is a potential problem of countries not being stringent enough with themselves, misreporting, or simply not setting goals<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Robiou du Pont|first=Yann|last2=Jeffery|first2=M. Louise|last3=Gütschow|first3=Johannes|last4=Rogelj|first4=Joeri|last5=Christoff|first5=Peter|last6=Meinshausen|first6=Malte|date=2016-11-19|title=Equitable mitigation to achieve the Paris Agreement goals|journal=Nature Climate Change|language=en|volume=7|issue=1|pages=38–43|doi=10.1038/nclimate3186|issn=1758-6798}}</ref> that will meet the under 2°C increase in temperature requirement set out by the [[Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C|2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report]] that is deemed necessary to meet in order to mitigate detrimental effects on hundreds of millions of lives.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/|title=Summary for Policymakers — Global Warming of 1.5 ºC|access-date=2019-10-23}}</ref> Additionally, the Paris Agreement is at risk because of the United States president announcing the intent to withdraw from the agreement, and enacting policy that is contrary to the goals of the report.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Pickering|first=Jonathan|last2=McGee|first2=Jeffrey S.|last3=Stephens|first3=Tim|last4=Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen|first4=Sylvia I.|date=2018-08-09|title=The impact of the US retreat from the Paris Agreement: Kyoto revisited?|journal=Climate Policy|volume=18|issue=7|pages=818–827|doi=10.1080/14693062.2017.1412934|issn=1469-3062}}</ref>
| |||